Nottingham Trent University Dfes Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans (Ilps) Section 1: Executive Summary

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project
Nottingham Trent University
DfES Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans (ILPs)
Section 1: Executive Summary
This report outlines and evaluates the Nottingham Trent University (NTU) ILP project
with three local partner colleges: Burton College, Peoples College and West
Nottinghamshire College. A Portfolio of Professional Practice is presented as an
appropriate ILP model for responding to the Success for All reform agenda, with
recommendations that the underpinning processes of reflection and planning also be
revisited and improved. A further focus on Continuing Professional Development
(CPD) has led to the recommendation that new channels of communication and
collaboration need to be established between initial teacher training (ITT) and
HR/Staff Development to ensure a shared understanding of CPD and a seamless
transition for trainees from ITT to CPD. NTU believe that this is key for the success
of the teacher reform strategy and suggest that a coherent professional development
process, which is owned by both ITT and HR and uses shared documentation to
record that process, will change the culture of the organisation as ‘engaged’ trainees
become ‘engaged’ employees, in terms of CPD.
This report also draws on the experiences of four college centres, within a project
collaboration led by NTU: Blackpool and the Fylde College, Craven College,
Newcastle College and Tower Hamlets College. Each has presented its own project
evaluation reports.
Section 2: Background Information and Context
Nottingham Trent University emerged as a university in 1992 but its roots go back a
long way, with the School of Art and Design being established in the 1840’s. With
over 25,000 students it is one of the largest universities in the UK, offering a wide
range of courses across three campuses, City, Clifton and Brackenhurst. There are
ten academic Schools within the university, each with their own area of
specialisation. The School of Education is based at Clifton and offers, amongst other
areas, Primary, Secondary and Post-compulsory initial teacher education and
training.
2.1 Original Project Brief
The aim of the project was to investigate and trial ways of identifying and tracking an
initial trainees’ starting point; developmental action points; continuing action plan and
CPD needs, in order to create a portfolio of practice which would enable them to
remain in good standing in relation to their practice.
The objectives were to:

1. produce paper based and ultimately electronic versions of:
- an initial assessment tool
- continuing individual learning plan
1
2. produce a set of materials for ITT providers to use and support their
trainees in developing their ILPs
3. make recommendations for links with colleges’ HR systems in order to
track and monitor professional development with a view to remaining in
good standing.
The original proposal included the University and four of its seven partner colleges;
three partner colleges piloted the materials with a fourth continuing as part of the
focus group. The project team and representatives from these partner colleges
comprise that Focus Group.
2.2 The Project
In addition to our own project, Nottingham Trent University (NTU) was asked to lead
a collaboration with four college centres, each with their own ILP projects: Blackpool
and the Fylde College; Craven College; Newcastle College and Tower Hamlets
College. To avoid confusion, we will use the term college centres to refer to the four
colleges that comprise the collaboration and the term partner colleges to refer to the
colleges that have been part of the NTU ILP project.
2.2.1 Local context

NTU validates and provides initial teacher training (ITT) across a wide range
of centres, offering a one year, full-time, pre-service PGCE/Cert.Ed.:PCE and
a two year, part-time in-service PGCE/Cert.Ed.: PCE. The first year of the
part-time in-service programme is offered in seven partner colleges, some of
whom also offer year two. The full time pre-service programme is offered at
NTU and franchised by licence at a partner college. For this project we have
focused on pre-service and in-service PCGE/Cert Ed trainees from NTU and
from three of these seven partner colleges: Burton College, People’s College
and West Nottinghamshire College. South Nottingham College was unable to
fully engage but has been represented on the focus group.
A professional development plan was in place on both the full-time and part-
time programmes before the pilot project. Our students represent a broad
range of prior learning and experience, professional contexts, individual needs
and expectations, and different levels of knowledge about the sector. We saw
the pilot project as an opportunity to improve resources and processes
relating to trainees’ reflective practice and action planning.
2.2.2 Summary of approaches used in the project:

• A project team comprising an NTU ITT course leader and an ex-HR manager
from the PCE sector; we felt that this combination was particularly appropriate
in the context of the project’s CPD focus. The project team leader was also
Project Manager for the collaboration.
• A focus group with representatives from all four partner colleges and the NTU
project team. Its main functions were to:
¾ provide a consultation forum for devising and editing materials
¾ pilot the materials and gather evidence, for evaluation, from tutors and
trainees using them
2
¾ provide a forum for evaluating the questionnaire results and student/tutor

feedback; discussing the findings; helping to identify key factors and
significant trends, particularly in the processes underpinning the materials;
evaluating the Portfolio of Professional Development and offering ideas on
further development
¾ contribute to identifying ways in which the materials and supporting
processes could be effectively implemented in ITT programmes for 2006-
07.
• Questionnaires were administered in August 2005 and June 2006. We used
evaluation from the initial questionnaire to inform the design of the initial
assessment tool and ILP and of the interview questions/briefing sheets used
in subsequent meetings. The final questionnaire helped us to identify the
impact of the new materials/processes and provided further recommendations
for improvement.
• A steering group was in place to oversee the project; it comprised members
whose areas of expertise embrace research and initial teacher training.
• Interviews were carried out with two of the partner colleges’ Human
Resources (HR) departments and their ITT teams
• A student focus group was held in June 2006 to explore, at a deeper level, the
findings and trends identified through the project. We also presented the
revised PDP??? for evaluative comments. This is the group that appears on
the NTU Case study.
2.2.3 Summary of project model:

The project ‘products’ are:
• An initial assessment tool which is paper-based but can be stored and

completed electronically and is used as self-assessment by trainees. Its
three sections are:
A: Personal Skills and Attributes - based on the related section in the
FEnto standards;
B: Study Skills - based on a selection of minimum core standards and
general study skills;
C: Teaching and Learning - outlines a range of strategies that trainees
could use.
We have provided tutor guidance notes to outline our rationale for its
design and implementation.
• A Portfolio of Professional Practice which is a loose-leaf portfolio, very

much on the line of a CPD portfolio. It contains a suggested content with
supporting materials for different sections. It is intended to be flexible and
have the capacity to be personalised by an individual trainee; revised to
suit an individual programme and adapted to be compatible with an
individual provider’s existing CPD processes. We have provided a tutor
introduction to outline our rationale for its design and implementation and
materials which will support tutor and students in developing the
underpinning skills. This includes guidance on action planning, including
the use of SMART targets.
3
• A literature review which provides a theoretical framework for three areas

that underpin ILPs: reflective practice; facilitating and recording
professional development; CPD.
• A case study which captures elements of the ILP process using video
footage from each of the five centres in the collaboration. It follows a
journey:
¾ from initial assessment and support identification (Tower Hamlets
College);
¾ to a ‘paper-based’ ILP presented on-line (Newcastle College);
¾ to an e-ILP which still requires paper-based evidence for awarding
bodies (Craven College);
¾ to an e-ILP on Moodle (Blackpool and the Fylde College);
¾ through to the transition from ITT to CPD (Nottingham Trent
University).
2.2.4 The end goal

The end goal of the project is based in its original aim: to produce a ‘portfolio of
practice’. However, we have identified several factors which underpin this project aim
and which we see as part of the end goal;
• to identify ways to create conditions on ITT programmes which allow trainees
to engage effectively in reflective practice;
• to identify a starting point for the introduction of the ILP onto ITT programmes,
especially if it is to become a long-term document;
• to identify ways to better support trainees as they transfer from ITT to CPD.
In addition, the experience of being part of a collaboration has impacted on us in
several ways which have broadened our views and deepened our understanding.
Whilst not an ‘end goal’, in itself, we do report on these unexpected outcomes.
Section 3: Models/approaches developed
3.1 Methodology
The project team has maintained a reflective approach throughout the project and
has encouraged reflective dialogue within focus group meetings, interviews and the
student focus group. We have brought to these groups new perspectives gained
from the collaboration but also from our desk research which has allowed us to
consider theoretical frameworks underpinning the projects.
Various factors led us to amend the original methodology, particularly to allow us to

focus on processes as well as documentation:
• the original personal development plan was retained for 74 trainees on the
NTU in-service programme, to serve as a control group;
• a student focus group was used instead of individual interviews;
• a literature review was included to enhance the collaborative report;
• a larger sample for both the initial and the final questionnaires was used to
capture a broader range of trainees’ views.
4
3.1.1 Needs assessment
The project team consulted with the focus group on an initial questionnaire which
we hoped would:
• identify the experience and perceptions of in-service and pre-service trainees
on: action planning; professional development journals (PDJs); support for the
reflective/action planning process; transition to CPD.
• identify any factors that could improve ITT curriculum and delivery
• identify any unexpected outcomes from statistically significant data.
We administered it by post to 311 in-service and pre-service trainees from the

academic year 2004-05 in late July/early August and included stamped addressed
envelopes to encourage responses. 119 out of 311 trainees responded, a return rate
of 38% against the 33% hoped for in the original bid. We presented a summary of
these responses to the steering and focus groups and used the information to:
inform the design and implementation of the IAT and ILP; identify ways of supporting
the reflective/action planning process and facilitating effective personal and
professional development; identify factors that might inform a seamless transition
from ITT to CPD at the end of programmes. The data from this and the final
questionnaire is presented in Appendices 1-3 of this report
We used a brief questionnaire to carry out face to face interviews with HR/staff
development managers in two of the partner colleges in order to investigate the
needs of staff and the organisation in relation to ILPs and CPD. We were also
interested in exploring the interface between ITT and HR so the ITT teams were also
present.
3.1.2 Piloting the proposed materials
In September 2005, we provided NTU tutors and the partner colleges with hard
copies of the Initial Assessment Tool (IAT); we also provided tutors with guidance
notes explaining the design rationale and making suggestions for administering the
tool.
Also in September 2005, we provided hard copies of the ILP to the NTU pre-service
group and to the three partner colleges. This document was titled Professional
Development Guidance and additional tutor guidance notes were provided to
support tutors in understanding the design rationale and identifying effective ways of
supporting trainees in planning and reflective practice. These materials were
evaluated in a variety of ways.
3.1.3 Evaluating the materials
Pre-service questionnaire and session

We gave the NTU pre-service group a short questionnaire about the initial
assessment tool (IAT) which we used a as a basis for discussion and to explore their
answers in more detail. 33 out of 35 trainees found the IAT useful in informing an
action plan; of these, 67% felt that it provided useful areas for focus, such as
personal development and teaching strategies and 24% that its value lay in providing
ideas to work from rather than having to ‘start from scratch’. The remaining 9% of
5
those who found it useful suggested that it helps to track change/progress and
provides in-depth self-evaluation.
Some suggested that the IAT could be designed to be used at different points in the
year – perhaps using different sections at different points.
Focus group
To evaluate the effectiveness of the IAT and ILP, we sent out a short questionnaire
to course tutors which provided a focus for discussion for the focus group in
November and the steering group in March. The main outcomes were the views that:
• a portfolio would be a better model of ILP as it could reflect the underpinning
process of planning and reflection in a way that disparate pieces of paper
cannot;
• there are tensions between detailed and prescriptive documentation that
‘direct’ the trainee and materials that are more open and flexible ;
• a selection of different proforma could be provided so that trainees could
select those that were relevant and so individualise their own ILPs;
• the ‘long-term document’, which would go with the trainee to support CPD,
would have institutional implications and HR would need to approve its use
and see it as a valuable tool for supporting staff.
We presented a suggested ‘contents’ for the ‘portfolio of practice’, refined it following
feedback and presented it to the student forum as the Portfolio of Professional
Practice in June 2006.
The November focus group found the piloted ILP (the Professional Development
Guidance) as an improvement on original materials and one tutor reported that the
action plans from 05-06 were better than those from previous years. All centres
reported that trainees had given mainly positive responses to the document. When
asked how others could be encouraged to engage with the IAT, trainees suggested:
• having an on-line version/interactive version on the VLP;
• introducing it as a group exercise and discussing each section before
completing it;
• making it relevant to the individual’s own development, otherwise it’s just
‘another form;’
• using it as a discussion tool with mentor and tutor;
• providing more guidance.
These suggestions reinforced comments in the final questionnaire, particularly the
idea of an on-going, electronic action plan. Within the collaboration, Blackpool and
the Fylde and Craven Colleges used on-line assessment tools. At Blackpool, 100%
of trainees used on-line literacy and numeracy assessments with a range of other
assessment tools being available. This on-line approach also has advantages for
tutors as they can track how and when trainees have engaged with them. Both these
colleges were also able to offer a range of initial assessment activities, including
learning style questionnaires which is another advantage to on-line assessment. This
is a development NTU intend to use for 06-07, especially for literacy and numeracy.
Student focus group

Five trainees, from each NTU pilot centre, were invited to participate in the Student
Focus Group; unfortunately only five responded and of those only three came on the
day. The reason for this was probably the timing as it was the week before final
portfolios had to be submitted; not a clever choice on our part! We used short
6
activities, an interview questionnaire and a whole group discussion; this session was
also videoed for the collaboration’s case study. Comments from this are included in
section 3.2.5 of this report.
Final questionnaire
A final questionnaire, based largely on the initial questionnaire, was administered by
post to 340 in-service and pre-service trainees in late May 2006 with a deadline for
return of early June; 109 students responded, a return rate of 32%. The results were
collated for three separate groups to allow comparison of data and identify the
impact of project materials: pre-service trainees; in-service trainees from partner
colleges and the control group of NTU in-service trainees. The findings from this final
questionnaire have been presented in three documents (Appendices 1-3).
3.1.4 Desk Research
Research was intended as part of the original bid but the literature review was a
response to the need for a theoretical framework for the five projects within the
collaboration. We broadened the research to accommodate this and focused on
reflective practice, professional development and CPD, and recording documentation
and processes underpinning them.
Initial searches for literature using ‘individual learning plans’ produced no academic
sources; the wider themes of ‘continuing professional development’, ‘reflective
practice’ and ‘professional development plans’ provided a range of literature,
including comparable ‘ILP’ models for other professional bodies. The findings from
this research were used to inform materials development, and support project
evaluation and are presented in the Literature Review.
The impact of carrying out this literature review has been significant. It has:
• refined and developed notions of what constitutes an individual learning
plan and what processes should underpin its development, for the project
team;
• led to discussion and a deeper understanding of professionalism and
CPD, for the project team and the focus group;
• raised issues over how to engage trainees in reflective practice and how to
create the conditions in which this can take place;
• contributed to the professional development of those involved, perhaps
most particularly the project team.
3.2 Key findings during the pilot
From evaluation of the initial and final questionnaires

On the whole the final questionnaires did not reveal a significant impact for the use
of the new materials except for some comparison between the in-service pilot and
control groups which are summarised in the conclusion to this report. The fact that
some responses in the final questionnaire were less positive than in the initial
questionnaire may be due to the new ILP not being sufficiently different to the
original one to have a significant impact; the tutors not being as familiar with, or not
‘owning’, the materials in the same way because they were new and the final
questionnaire being sent out just as trainees were completing final portfolios for
7
submission against the initial questionnaire being administered in early August when
they had finished their course, knew their results and had time to reflect.
Guidance/clear information, underpinning processes and support are seen as

key to successful action planning and reflection
In both the initial and final questionnaires, we asked trainees to make suggestions on
how to improve the planning and review processes for action plans. Only 1% of pre-
service and 2% of in-service trainees suggested changes to the actual
documentation. Across related questions, an average of:
24% of pre-service and 17 % of in-service trainees commented on factors
relating to clarity and sufficiency of information
‘a crib sheet of examples would have helped’

‘students need be encouraged to see the benefit of action planning and
reflection on progress, rather than seeing it as a chore’
46% of pre-service and 29% of in-service trainees made comments relating to

underpinning processes.
‘more prominence to the development of self (rather than completion of

individual assignments’
‘the concept of reflective learning needs far more time. . .’
30% of pre-service and 41% commented on issues relating to support.
‘need more time to get to grips with it’

‘ group discussion would have been helpful’ and ‘important information and
development is gained by peer and group interaction’
In-service trainees do not have a greater understanding of action planning and

reflection than pre-service trainees and need at least as much support
Even though action planning is widely used in post-16 education, many in-service
trainees are not confident with the process and have a perceived need for support
which ITT teachers/trainers may not be aware of. Only 56% of in-service trainees
reported that they ‘fully understood’ the importance of drafting an action plan with 8%
not understanding it at all; 76% of pre-service trainees felt they understood. When
asked about their understanding of how the reflective journal relates to professional
development: 54% of in-service trainees felt they ‘understood well’ with 6% having
‘little understanding’; for pre-service trainees, 59% felt they ‘understood well’ and 8%
felt they had little understanding.
Tutor and mentor support are seen as key in the reflective process and in
planning and reviewing action plans
‘more time with the tutor on the process’

‘some kind of consultation with tutor then mentor [at the end of the course]
and use this to feed in with student’s own reflection’
‘more one to one tutorials’
8
Across the two questionnaires, an average of only 39% of pre-service trainees and
32% in-service found their subject mentor ‘very helpful’ in reviewing the action plan ;
an average of 17% of both pre-service and in-service found them ‘not at all helpful’.
On being asked, in the final questionnaire, how the review process could be
improved at the end of the course (supporting the transition to CPD) 75% of pre-
service responses and 39% of in-service responses indicated tutor and mentor
support as being the most important factors.
The Tower Hamlets model identifies support needs at initial interview and links in to
mentor support for those trainees who require it. The impact on retention during the
project has been significant, with an average increase in retention across the three
pilot groups of 3.8%. Blackpool and the Fylde college gave trainees the choice of
giving their tutors and mentors access to their on-line ILP; although some did not
want to so this, others saw the advantages in terms of additional support in
identifying development points for action planning.
Opportunities for class-led, peer discussion is seen as important in supporting

planning and reflection on ITT courses
Although this was not a category on our questionnaire, there were a number of
comments in the narrative about the value of peer discussion. When asked what
improvements they would like to see the trainees made statements such as:
‘group reflections to discuss challenges faced in the week and how
overcome them’
‘greater sharing, possibly an on line space where trainees could compare
experiences’
‘important information and development is gained by peer and group
Interaction’.
We would recommend that this become part of all ITT programmes, particularly as
research shows that collaboration and discussion support the development of
reflective skills and lead to a deeper understanding. Those centres which use the
VLP??? as part of their programmes have the additional way to provide peer
discussion in the form of a discussion board. Blackpool and the Fylde College intend
to introduce a group Wiki or Moodle Blog for 06-07 to further support peer discussion
and sharing of ideas and experiences.
3.2.2 From evaluation of the Initial Assessment Tool (IAT)
A starting point that allows trainees to identify and celebrate their existing
skills and areas of competence, as well as identifying areas for development,
is seen as really important part of initial assessment
Trainees highlighted particular sections of the IAT as being particularly useful - the
section on teaching strategies: being able to identify one’s own skills and areas of
competence; a structured, on-going way to reflect on one’s own skills; a better
process for self-evaluation than just being asked to self-evaluate. One pre-service
trainee, who had a key management role in his ‘previous life’ found coming on to the
ITT course as an ‘absolute beginner’ quite difficult. He appreciated the opportunity,
through the IAT, of identifying the transferable skills he was bringing with him into the
course, and into his teaching.
9
. . . in the past we have asked learners to put this exclusively in their own
words, often unsuccessfully. The pilot materials certainly concentrate their
minds on the course. (anonymous college tutor)
3.2.3 From evaluation of Individual Learning Plan
A ‘booklet’ or ‘portfolio’ is a preferred model to separate pieces of paper (for

different parts of the reflective and planning processes)
The pilot and student focus groups supported the portfolio approach and responses
to the final questionnaire suggest the need for the clarity and coherence that a
portfolio would provide. Following are some suggestions made by the focus group
which we intend to take forward in the portfolio and supporting processes:
- having the materials on the VLP in an interactive form
- the importance of ITT teachers/trainers modelling reflective practice for
trainees
- allowing the document to reflect the course structure so that trainees are
guided through professional development processes by the materials
themselves
- linking the ILP and course assignments is crucial and should be made more
explicit, especially in the areas of subject knowledge and subject pedagogy.
We see reflective practice, facilitated by ITT teachers/trainers as being key to the
success of the portfolio and to effective professional development. It is interesting to
note that the college centres have addressed some of these points with their on-line
‘portfolios’. Blackpool’s model is very interactive and both Newcastle and Craven
have explicit links between their ILPs and their course assignments.
An ILP or Portfolio of Professional Practice must be introduced at the earliest

opportunity, preferably on an individual’s first ITT programme
Many in-service students see themselves as experienced teachers/trainers, so the
introduction of new materials is often is seen as ‘just more paperwork to do for the
course’. If a culture of reflection and planning was part of ITT from a trainee’s ‘first
contact’, and the portfolio was started at that point, it would be more relevant and
meaningful, as a long-term document that they would carry through their ITT and into
CPD. The trainees on the student focus group saw this as a good idea and likened it
to an ‘adult record of achievement’.
To be successful, a long-term ILP needs to be owned by HR/Staff Development

so that the transition from ITT to CPD is seamless
No direct evidence can be provided for this point; it has come out of project team and
focus group discussions. It requires:
- HR to recognise the ITT ILP/portfolio or ITT to adapt and adopt the
organisation’s CPD portfolio;
- ITT and HR need to have a shared understanding of, and vocabulary for, CPD
so that reflective practice and planning skills developed on ITT courses can
be carried forward.
Further comments are provided on this subject in section 3.2.5.
3.2.4 From desk research
10
ITT teachers/trainers need to understand reflection and how to facilitate it

before they can effectively develop those skills in their trainees
A practitioner cannot support another [in becoming a reflective professional]

…if they are not aware and open themselves. (Bolton, 2005:7)
We suggest that if teachers supporting trainees on ITT programmes do not fully

understand or engage in reflective practice themselves, it is difficult for them to
facilitate it effectively with trainees. This view is supported in the literature review and
is offered as a reason why trainees do not always understand the relevance of
reflection and planning or engage well in the process. It is additionally important if
ITT is going to develop these skills as tools for later CPD.
Newcastle College do not make the use of reflection explicit in their report and,
certainly, in their initial questionnaire trainees highlight ‘targets’ as the main purpose
of the ILP. This may not reflect the true picture but does serve to highlight the
tension between instrumental and reflective approaches to ILPs and professional
development.
ITT teachers/trainers need to actively foster conditions, within their

programmes and their classrooms, in which effective reflective practice can
take place
Research suggests that reflection has to be nurtured through appropriate activities
but also by providing an environment of trust and safety in which trainees can
develop. We have included ‘conditions’ in which this can take place in the Tutor
Introduction to the Portfolio of Professional Practice, also the literature review
explores this area in more detail. Of particular interest is the notion of providing
scaffolded support so that reflective tasks are simpler at the start of the course and
for trainees unfamiliar with reflection, and become more demanding as trainees gain
confidence and develop reflective skills. Craven College describe the e-ILP being
used in this way (p.10): an inclusive approach which builds up week by week and
allows trainees to increase their confidence.
3.2.5 Transition from Initial Teacher Training to CPD
The evidence for this section has been drawn from the following sources:
College meetings with ITT and HR staff
Questionnaires from trainees
Trainee Focus Group
Feedback from Partner College Meetings
It is almost a section in its own right and can be seen as building on comments made
through the report.
As already noted, this project has concentrated on the ILP as a process as opposed
to focussing on the documentation. This was partially because it was impossible to
agree on a single version to meet the needs of all organisations involved and also
because of an early recognition that the CPD process, as outlined in the Institute for
Learning (IfL) model (http://www.ifl.ac.uk), mirrors the reflective planning process
described in the NTU model. The final version of the NTU documentation is in a
11
loose leaf format, also downloadable electronically, and is felt flexible to meet the
needs of trainees, teacher trainers and employers.
During the course of project, proposals from the DfES have emerged in terms of
CPD requirements for QTLS (http://www.dfes.gov.uk), as has the draft model
documentation from the IfL. This reinforced our focus on the process of transition
from ITT to CPD rather than the documentation.
The Trainees Perspective
“The majority of my time was given to planning, preparing and teaching. CPD is
important, but should take this into account and be concise” Trainee questionnaire,
August 2005.
“ I really committed to it in the first half of the course but as workload and pressure
grew I found myself hating it and first complying with the whole process” Trainee
questionnaire, June 2006
From the onset we were interested to learn from the trainees whether they had truly
engaged with the reflective process or had seen it as a requirement of the course.
Over both years the majority of trainees who replied stated that they had engaged at
least partially with the process. In our 2005 survey only 8% of pre-service trainees
and 27% of in-service trainees stated that they were almost or fully compliant. These
figures for 2006 were 10% and 16% respectively. It is interesting to note that an e-
ILP does not immediately lead to total engagement. Blackpool and the Fylde College
have found that, whilst 92% of trainees on their pilot courses accessed their e-ILP,
only 20% of pre-service and 60% of in-service trainees used it for reflective target
setting and action planning; the rest opted for a paper-based version.
We also asked our trainees about the conditions which made the process effective
and more likely to lead to commitment. Over the two years the top five important
conditions cited were:
Table 1. Top 5 conditions cited as necessary for commitment to reflection and

action planning
Pre-service In-service 2005 Pre- service In-service In-service 2006

2005 2006 2006 Control Group
Tutor Line Manager Tutor Mentor Tutor
support support support support support
Mentor Access to Mentor Tutor Mentor
support info/resources support support support
Access to Tutor Access to Access to Remission
information support info/resources info/resources of Time
Use of IT Mentor Remission of Use of IT Access to
support time and use info/resources
of IT (joint)
Line Manager Remission Line Manager Staff Development
support of Time support
12
This reinforces previous observation on the importance of tutor and trainee support
for ITT trainees.
We asked, in 2005 and 2006, what recommendations trainees had for encouraging
people to engage in the reflective process; they suggested:
“Action planning should provide opportunities for personal and professional growth.
More time in discussion with tutors to create dynamic goals would be useful”.
Trainee questionnaire. August 2005.
“Find time from employer, develop a structured, methodical approach, encourage

interest and support from mentors and tutors” Trainee questionnaire 2006.
Our student focus group confirmed that the single factor that would encourage
engagement was time by way of remission/abatement. The provision of time for CPD
has been addressed by the DfES in the recommendation of a minimum of 30 hours
per year. However, there has been some concern expressed that staff will see this
as a requirement to ‘clock up’ the hours rather than an opportunity to develop and
the focus group raised some concern as to how these hours can be fitted in
resourced.
There is evidence from the questionnaires that employees from outside FE Colleges
see little relevance in the reflective process and see it as a FENTO/course
requirement, as expressed by one 2005 trainee,
“It might be useful and valuable to take into account more individual
trainees/objectives and work environment. Although the FENTO standards need to
be covered…the diversity of backgrounds and individual agenda meant that the
uniformity of the course left them feeling alienated and questioning the course
relevance”
This may be more about the way reflection has been presented and links made to
the FEnto standards which have been perceived by the wider learning and skills
sector, as more about colleges.
“Paperwork too prescriptive. Prefer mind mapping for planning” Trainee

questionnaire. August 2005.
“I feel that this is something that has to come from yourself and therefore should
require minimal assistance from others” Trainee questionnaire 2006.
“For me reflection is excellent, the journal is a pain” Trainee questionnaire 2006.
On the question of who is responsible for CPD and who should own and maintain the
CPD evidence, it was unanimously felt to be with the individual. This was particularly
expressed by pre service trainees looking for their first teaching post and where they
are not sponsored by an employer, such as part time lecturers and portfolio workers
with a variety of employments over the course of their careers. The Trainee Focus
Group also expressed the opinion that the proposed Portfolio of Professional
13
Practice would be useful to take along to recruitment and promotion interviews akin
to Records of Achievement. The ring binder format would address issues around
confidentiality in that certain documents could be shared with employers for
appraisal purposes and others could remain private.
Blackpool and the Fylde College highlighted this issue of ownership when they
asked their trainees if they would allow access to their ILP for tutors and mentors.
Reaction was very mixed; some students felt that access rights would ‘compromise
the personal nature of their Journal’ and others that ‘they would not be able to
express themselves . . in an open, honest and candid manner.’ When they gave their
trainees the choice, 50% chose to allow access and 50% chose not to.
At the end of the course trainees are required to complete a CPD plan. These are
assessed, but are not taken into the workplace. If we are to assume that CPD begins
at recruitment and should be seamless, trainees need to be encouraged to take this
action plan as springboard for next stages of development and action points fed into
support and supervision/appraisal process back in the workplace.
“I think many trainees coming into the programme do not fully understand what this
entails and tutors sometime assume that they do. It may be useful to show trainees
some models or previously written action plans to give them a better idea” Trainee
questionnaire 2005
“On line planning – perhaps using VLP – where personal files used but tutor has
access – online reviews could then be conducted – using email too” Trainee
questionnaire 2005
The 2005 trainee questionnaire contained several quotes such as those above
suggesting that it may be useful to provide trainees with examples/samples of the
documentation. In the pilot year that was resisted for fear of being prescriptive. When
similar feedback was obtained in 2006 the decision has been taken to include
examples in the portfolio which tutors can use to stimulate discussion.
Although the original plan suggested the development of an electronic version of the
ILP, it became obvious to the Project Team that a number of pilots were specifically
focusing on this already, including three centres within the collaboration. Blackpool
and the Fylde College has developed a Moodle site which provides ITT trainees with
an interactive experience supporting reflection and ILP development; Craven College
has developed a Moodle site reflecting course structure and taking the student
through the process in a more formal way; Newcastle College has developed an e-
ILP which focuses on monitoring and tracking. Each of these provides answers to
some of the trainees’ suggestions made in the NTU pilot for use of ILT and the VLP.
It is intended to extend the use of ILT for 2006-07 by providing electronic materials,
developing the VLP, using some of the ideas sourced from the college centres and
introducing a blog on the NTU web page to facilitate a professional network for ITT
trainees, particularly to support subject specialism.
The Employers Perspective
14
The research in this area has centred solely on FE Colleges due to time constraints.
It must be acknowledged that trainees are drawn from a range of employers (such as
NHS, Police, Fire, Ambulance services, private training providers) and their views
have been captured in the questionnaires.
From the discussions with HR Managers in Colleges, it would appear that the
majority of recordable CPD is attendance on courses or events. Most of the Colleges
interviewed held staff development days to consider specific topics. We found little
evidence of Colleges having an organisational strategy to provide conditions to
support reflection as a tool for CPD. Indeed some teacher trainers in the pilot
reported that historically their contracts had provided time for scholarly activity and
research, but this had now gone.
There may be an expectation from employers that ITT programmes will produce
reflective practitioners, yet the overwhelming evidence from our questionnaire
analysis and talking to trainees, is that a large number undertake the activity to gain
the qualification. A large number did feel they may carry forward the process, but
they would need the conditions (time and workloads) to enable them to do so
successfully.
“It helped to write down the action plan and critical incidents throughout – made me
reflect and in some cases come to terms with difficult situations. Highlighted certain
issues which I then raised with line manager at appraisal” Trainee questionnaire
August 2005
The role of the Line Manager

This appears, from trainee comments, to support compliance rather than integration;
there appears to be little concern with measuring the impact of ITT in the workplace;
in fact, ITT seems to operate in a vacuum. There is also little evidence that
employers integrate ITT into normal support and supervision. It is likely that pressure
of time is one of the reasons for this.
The role of HR
There are some feelings of mistrust about the true role of HR and some protection
over what information (if any) is communicated to the HR department by ITT
providers. There was no evidence of HEIs having meaningful communication with
HR in supporting individual trainees to achieve; indeed, they are perceived, by some,
as having a policing function. In asking what information they should be party/entitled
to and who is responsible for providing it, our discussions with HR and staff
development managers suggest there is much scope for improving the
communication process between all parties responsible for an individual’s
development. This is particularly so if the reflective skills for professional
development are going to be developed by ITT teachers/trainers, and trainees are
going to carry forward a long-term document into CPD.
From the HR Managers sampled there appears to be more emphasis on compliance

and budgets rather than evaluation and measuring the impact of CPD. Even in cases
where HR and ITT teams have a strong working relationship and their processes are
well developed, they operate totally separately as far as ITT and CPD are
concerned.
15
Mandatory requirement for CPD.
The national framework is to be welcomed as a real opportunity to drive forward

CPD in the wider learning and skills sector and in colleges . From the literature
review we have identified a range of models for CPD and concluded that most
models will fit between the extremes of engagement and full compliance. Based on
our discussions and research, shown below is our model of how these extremes
might result in very different structural and cultural models for Human Resources.
Table 2. Possible HR structures and cultures (extremes of a spectrum)
Engagement Compliance
HR Function Strategic/facilitator Administrative
Approach to CPD Evaluative/Impact driven Task/process driven
Management Style Leadership Management
Notion of Democratic Managerial
professionalism
Culture/Climate Trust Control
Documentation Flexible Prescriptive
Line Managers Coach Gatekeeper
Ownership Individual Organisation
Participants Volunteer Coerced
Appraisal Developmental Rewards
We would urge the DfES to take these into account when determining its final
requirements for CPD in order that the initiative is owned by individual staff, HR, Line
Managers and the whole organisation.
3.3 Issues arising
There have been no significant issues arise during this project. The original bid
intended four partner colleges to take part in the pilot but one was unable to pilot the
materials; they continued as part of the Focus Group. Another partner college has
undergone a restructuring process over the period of the pilot which has made
engagement more difficult.
3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations
3.4.1. Conclusions
At the end of the project, it is important that the materials and improved processes
can be sustained and fully embedded into the PGCE/Cert Ed courses at the
university and in the partner colleges. Because evidence for the impact of the piloted
documentation was limited, NTU intends to pilot the Portfolio of Professional Practice
in 2006-07, with its pre-service group and, hopefully, groups in two partner colleges.
16
Feedback will be sought and evaluated, wider evaluation of other models from the
DfES Phase 2 pilots considered, and a ‘best model’ rolled out in September 2007.
We hope to hold a dissemination event for the NTU partnership which will explore
the key findings of the project and identify ways ahead. This will also be valuable
preparation for the reforms that will be implemented in 2006-07.
Because the IAT and Portfolio of Professional Practice are currently in paper form
and the focus is on the process which underpins them, there are a limited number of
resource implications, mainly time and cost:
- implementation is simple in terms of the paper-based materials and storing
them electronically;
- photocopying the materials and providing the portfolio (unless tutors download
and provide own folders;
- administering the IAT and developing the ILP within sessions;
- staff training/awareness so that teams adopt a coherent approach to the
materials and the reflective/action planning processes;
- ITT and HR liaising on common approaches and documentation, and possibly
shared staff development;
- mentor training so that subject mentors are familiar with the materials and
underpinning processes and understand how to support trainees;
- providing on-going support for the process through tutorials and class-led
discussion;
Any ITT team could adapt and/or add to the materials to suit their own programme
needs.
Comparison of final questionnaire results between the in-service pilot and in-service
control groups (Appendix 3) show a positive impact for pilot trainees of the new
materials and processes:
greater understanding of the importance of drafting an action plan (A1)
more effective tutor support (A3)
greater usefulness of the action plan in shaping professional development
(A4)
better understanding of the professional development process (A5)
more effective mentor support (more helpful) (B4)
Overall, however, there is less evidence of the impact on trainees than we would
have hoped for.
The greatest impact from the project has been for tutors and the project team.
Clear ideas can be taken into curriculum planning, particularly in relation to reflective
practice and how to create conditions to nurture it. The portfolio provides a holistic
approach to professional development and tutors have materials in one document so
peer discussion and collaborative working is more easily supported. Contact has
been made between ITT tutors and their HR/Staff Development departments which
will, hopefully, allow further dialogue to take place in which ITT can support HR in
understanding the Success for All reform agenda and contributing to its
implementation.
Also significant, is the potential impact on the institutions themselves. If the

recommendations from this project were taken forward, institutions would have a
17
Portfolio of Professional Practice which would be recognised and owned by both ITT
and HR. ITT would develop skills of reflection and planning in trainees which will
support CPD and the portfolio would record real professional development, including
the impact on learners. When trainees moved on from ITT, the transition would be
seamless and the knowledge and skills would be in place to engage more effectively
in CPD which, in turn, would impact on the quality agenda of the institutions.
3.4.2. Recommendations
On programme
• Integrate reflective practice, action planning and reflective logs/journals into

the course rather than introducing them as things that have to be done to
satisfy course requirements.
• Introduce the ILP (Portfolio of Professional Practice) in context with
opportunity for class discussion, including notions of professionalism,
reflection, what CPD is and how the portfolio relates to these.
• ITT teams should take time to understand reflection and to explore ways in
which to facilitate; this includes ways in which to create the conditions that
support effective reflection and professional development, including
scaffolding.
Transition to CPD
• Our proposal to introduce the portfolio at the earliest opportunity (ie.
individual’s first ITT course) brings the CPD agenda forward. It also supports
the whole development process from appointment, through initial assessment,
ITT into CPD.
• Use existing networks, national and regional, to bring together HEIs, teacher
trainers and HR/Staff Development managers to explore improved working
together and to create a seamless professional development experience for
ITT trainees and member of staff.
• ITT courses should provide an input, on transition to CPD, at the end of the
course and encourage students to take forward outstanding development
needs into the workplace.
• Internally, HR Managers and Line Managers need to work together to provide

the seamless transition from appointment to ITT to CPD. This would involve a
clarification of roles and improved communication systems which also respect
confidentiality. They also need to provide briefings for staff on what CPD is
and how to do it
• The culture and structure of an organisation can influence the model for CPD
that a College wishes to adopt. This can run along the spectrum from
compliance, with the CPD meeting the requirements of the DfES, to full
engagement with the process aimed at achieving continuous improvement. It
should include integration with other quality assurance systems such as
appraisal, observations, peer review, meetings, self assessment process,
18
course reviews etc. We see this as crucial to the success of the Success for
All reform agenda.
• Managers need to be convinced of the value of reflection as a development

tool. We would like to see further research which can measure and evaluate
the impact of reflection as a staff and organisational development tool. The
findings of this could be widely disseminated to persuade managers of the
benefit that reflection can bring about for real professional development and
the impact on the individual and the whole organisation.
• Professional training providers operating in the learning and skills sector

should be encouraged to seek ways for individuals to evidence CPD and its
impact.
Reference:
Bolton, G. (2005) Reflective Practice (2nd ed.) London: SAGE Publications Ltd
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Equipping Our Teachers for the
Future: Reforming Initial Teacher Training for the Learning and Skills Sector
London: DfES
APPENDICES:
Appendix 1 Graphical Data on Final Questionnaire Results (June 2006)

Appendix 2 Comparison of findings from Initial (August 2005) and Final
(June 2006) Questionnaire Results
Appendix 3 Data from NTU in-service control group: Comparison of findings
from Initial Questionnaire (August 2005) In-service and Final
Questionnaire (June 2006) in-service control group
19
APPENDIX 1
Nottingham Trent University
School of Education
DfES Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans
Graphical data on Final Questionnaire Results (June 2005)
Three colleges and NTU piloted the new initial assessment tool and individual
learning plan on their pre-service and in-service PGCE/Cert Ed programmes. The
NTU in-service course was designated a control group and continued to use the
original materials and processes from the previous year. The pilot documents,
with accompanying tutor guidance, were introduced at different points on each
of the courses but between weeks one and five overall. The ILP was contained
within a document named Professional Development Guidance which provided
information and guidance on action planning and the reflective process; the
Initial Assessment tool was used as a starting point for action planning but also
for starting to consider personal and professional development.
In May 2006, a final questionnaire was administered, by post, to all students on

the college and university PGCE/Cert Ed programmes. For administrative and
evaluative purposes these questionnaires were tracked for three distinct groups
of students: the NTU pre-service; the colleges’ PGCE/Cert Eds and the NTU in-
service control group. This was to allow:
a) comparison with the in-service and pre-service results from the initial
questionnaire, administered in July 2005
b) comparison between those students who had used the pilot materials
and the control group who had not.
The questionnaire was a shorter version of the initial questionnaire, some
questions having been removed as they were felt not to be relevant for this
stage in the pilot.
340 questionnaires were sent out and 109 were received back – a return rate of
32%.
The results have been collated and presented on three separate documents:
• Appendix 1: Graphical data on final questionnaire results (this document)
• Appendix 2: Comparison of findings from Initial (August 2005) and Final
(June 2006) Questionnaire Results
• Appendix 3: Comparison of findings from Initial Questionnaire (August
2005), In-service and Final Questionnaire (June 2006), In-service control
group
Summary and evaluation of the findings is within the Nottingham Trent

University Project Evaluation Report.
20
Summary of in-service and pre-service pilot groups results
Section A: Drafting your first Professional Development Plan (Action

Plan 1)
A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action

plan?
Q1. How well did you understand the importance Q1. How well did you understand the importance
of drafting an action plan? of drafting an action plan?
fully understood fully understood

partially understood partially understood
not underrstood not understood
In-service Pre-service
A2 What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan 1?
Q2. What sources of information did you use to Q2. What sources of information did you use to
develop Action Plan1? develop Action Plan 1?
20 50
Number of responses
Number of responses
15 40
30
10 Series1 Series1
20
5
10
0 0
a b c d e f g h i j a b c d e f g h i j
See A2 for sources See A2 for sources
These categories were a) feedback from interview; b) microteaching sessions;

c) initial assessment results; d) own reflection/self awareness; e) class-led peer
discussion; f) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic); g) minimum
core;
h) internal observation feedback (in service); i) tutorials; j) other
21
A3 How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action
plan?
Q3. How effective was the tutor support given to Q3. How effective was the tutor support given to
you in drafting this action plan? you in drafting this action plan?
excellent excellent
good good
satisfactory satisfactory
unsatisfactory unsatisfactory
A4 How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional
development?
Q4. How useful did you find the plan in shaping Q4. How useful did you find the plan in shaping
your professional development? your professional development?
very useful very useful

partially useful partially useful
no use no use
A5 (In-service students only)

What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in
undertaking the course?
Q5. What types of support were provided by your

employer to assist you in undertaking the
course?
25
20
responses
Number of
15
Series1
10
5
0
a b c d e f g h
See A5 for types of support
In-service
The categories were: a) remission of time; b) line manager support; c) in-house

coach or mentor; d) access to resources and/or information; e) support and
supervision discussions; f) attendance payment; g) other.
22
A6 Suggestions to improve the initial action planning process

(Qualitative data – see Appendix 3)
Section B: Drafting your second Professional Development Plan -Action

Plan 2 (Pre-service students)
Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action plan (In-
service
Students)
B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your

understanding of the professional development process?
Q1. At this stage of the course how would you Q1. At this stage of the course how would you
rate your understanding of the professional rate your understanding of the professional
development process? development process?
greater understanding
same level of
same understanding
understanding
less understanding
less understanding
B2 How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective
journal?
Q2. How useful did you find the process of Q2. How useful did you find the process of
completing the reflective journal? completiing the reflective journal?
Number of responses
Number of responses
7
12 6
10 5
8
6 Series1 4
Series1
4 3
2 2
0 1
0
ul
e
9
us
ef
l
e
u
us
us
ef
o
-n
us
y
o
er
-n
y
1
er
-v
-v
10
10
1 = no use 10 =very useful 1 = no use 10 = very useful
Students were asked to score out of 10.

Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful
Score of 4-7 – found it quite useful
Score of 8-10 – found it very useful
23
B3 How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates
to the professional development process?
How well did you understand how the reflective Q3. How well did you understand how the
journal relates to the professional development reflective journal relates to the professional
process?
development process?
16
6
Number of responses
14
5
Number of responses
12
4
10
3 Series1
8 Series1
6
2
4
1
2
0
g
2
ta 9
0
in
in
nd
nd
ta
g
2
ta 9
g
rs
rs
in
in
nd
de
de
nd
ta
un
un
rs
rs
de
de
e
-n
et
un
un
pl
o
om
-n
et
pl
1
-c
om
-c
10
10
1 = no understanding 10 = complete
1 = no understanding 10 = complete
understanding understanding

Score of 1-3 – had little understanding
Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding
Score of 8-10 – understood well
B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of

action plan 1?
How helpful was your subject mentor in Q4. How helpful was your subject mentor in
supporting your review of Action Plan 1? supporting your review of Action Plan 1?
very helpful very helpful

minimal assistance minimal assistance
not at all helpful no use
24
B5 What sources of information did you use to draft your second

action plan (pre-service students)?
Q5. What sources of information did you use to

draft your second Action Plan?
20
Number of responses
15
10 Series1
0
a b c d e f g
See B5 for sources
The categories were:

a) action plan 1; b) observation feedback from subject mentor; c) self
evaluation of own teaching; d) own reflections/reflective journal; e) FEnto
teaching and learning standards (generic); f) course content/class
discussions;
g) other.
B6 Suggestions for improving the process of review and action

planning at this second stage (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)
Section C: Course Completion
C1 Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective
learning or did you simply comply with course requirements?
Q1. Did you fully engage with the process of Q1. Did you fully engage with the process of
planning and reflective learning or did you planning anf reflective learning or did you simply
comply with course requirements? comply with course requirements?
Number of responses
7
12
responses
Number of
6
10 5
8 4
6 Series1 3 Series1
4 2
2 1
0 0
compliance
9
1 - total
9
e
d
nc
it e
ia
m
pl
om
om
-c
-c
10
1
1 = total compliance 10 = fully commited 1 = total compliance 10 = fully commited

Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance
Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging well
Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully committed
25
C2 Suggestions for encouraging other initial teacher training students

to engage fully with this process (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)
C3 How useful did you find the synoptic review in identifying future
development needs?
Q3. How useful did you find the synoptic review in
identifying future development needs?
very useful
some use
no use
Pre-service
C4 How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional

development plan to inform your future development?
Q4. How likely are you to continue to use a Q4. How likely are you to continue to use a
continuing professional development plan to continuing professional development plan to
inform your future development? inform your future development?
Definitely definitely
Likely likely
Possibly possibly
Unlikely unlikely
26
C5 Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the
course?
Q5. Overall, how far do you feel you have

developed during the course?
16
Number of responses
14
12
10
8 Series1
6
4
2
0
ge
ge
ch 9
an
an
ch
nt
o
-n
ca
1
ifi
n
ig
-s
10
1 = no cha nge 10 = significa nt cha nge
In-service
Number of responses
8
6
4 Series1
2
0
2
ch 9
ge
ge
an
an
ch
o
.
ig
-n
-s
1
10
1 = no change 10 = significant change
Pre-service

Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change
Score of 4-7 – some, but moderate change
Score of 8-10 – significant change
C6 What types of support do you feel were effective in supporting you

in the action planning and reflective processes?
No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3.
C7 Suggestions for improving the review process at the end of the

course
(qualitative data – see Appendix 3)
Section D: Additional information
D1 Were you a pre-service or in-service student?

22 pre-service students and 54 in-service students responded to the
questionnaire.
27
D2 What teaching experience do you have?
D3 Do you work for a training provider, a college of further education

or an other provider?

‘Other’ providers cited:
• Work-based trainer
• Commercial company
• Prison education (2)
• Fire service
• Police trainer
• Youth justice board
• Wherever work can be found
D4 Number of hours worked
D5 Do you hold any additional responsibilities?
D6 The educational establishment where you undertook your course
28
Summary of NTU in-service control group results
Section A: Drafting your first Professional Development Plan (Action

Plan 1)
A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action

plan?
Q1. How well did you understand the importance

of drafting an action plan?
fully understood
partially understood
not understood
A2 What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan?
Q2. What sources of information did you use to

develop Action Plan?
35
Number of responses
30
25
20
Series1
15
10
5
0
a b c d e f g h i
see A2 for sources
These categories were a) feedback from interview; b) observation feedback; c)

own reflection/self awareness; d) class-led peer discussion; e) FEnto teaching
and learning standards (generic); f) minimum core; g) internal observation
feedback (in service); h) tutorials; i) other
29
A3 How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this
action plan?
Q3. How effective was the tutor support given to
you in drafting this action plan?
excellent
good
satisfactory
unsatisfactory
development?
Q4. How useful did you find the plan in shaping
your professional development?
very useful
partially useful
no use
A5 What types of support were provided by your employer to assist

you in undertaking the course?
Q5. What types of support were provided by your
course?
20
responses
Number of
15
10 Series1
5
0
a b c d e f g
see A5 for types of support
The categories were: a) remission of time; b) line manager support; c) in-house

coach or mentor; d) access to resources and/or information; e) support and
supervision discussions; f) attendance payment; g) other.
30

(Qualitative data – see Appendix 3)
Section B: Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action

plan
B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your

understanding of the professional development process?
Q1. At this stage of the course how would you

rate your understanding of the professionsl
development process?
same level of
understanding
less understanding
B2 How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective
journal?
Q2. How useful did you find the process of

completing the reflective journal?
Number of responses
10
8
6
Series1
4
2
0
ul
e
9
us
ef
us
o
-n
y
er
1
-v
10
1 = no use 10 = very useful

Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful
31
B3 How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to
the
professional development process?
Q 3 . H o w w e ll d id y o u u n d e r s ta n d h o w th e
r e fle c tiv e jo u r n a l r e la te s to th e p r o fe s s io n a l
d e v e lo p m e n t p r o c e s s ?
14
Number of responses
12
10
8
S e rie s 1
6
4
2
0
ng
ng
i
n9d
di
8
n
ta
ta
rs
rs
de
de
un
un
e
o
et
-n
pl
om
1
-c
10
1 - n o u n d e r sta n d i n g 1 0 - c o m p l e te
u n d e r sta n d i n g

Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding
B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of

action plan?
Q4. How helpful was your subject mentor in
supporting your review of your action plan?
very helpful
minimal assistance
not at all helpful
B5 Suggestions for improving the process of review at this stage in

the course (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)
32
C1 Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective
learning or did you simply comply with course requirements?
Q1. Did you fully engage with the process of

planning and reflective learning or did you simply
comply with course requirements?
Number of responses
10
9
8
7
6
5 Series1
4
3
2
1
0
2
m 9
d
e
it e
nc
ia
m
pl
m
co
co
ly
ul
al
-f
ot
-t
10
1
1 = total compliance 10 = fully commited

Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance
Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging well
Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully committed
C2 Suggestions for encouraging other teacher training students to

engage fully with this process (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

Q3. How likely are you to continue to use a

continuing professional development plan to
inform your future development?
definitely
likely
possibly
unlikely
33
course?

Number of responses
9
8
7
6
5
4 Series1
3
2
1
0
2
e
ge
ng
an
ha
ch
tc
o
an
-n
fic
1
ni
ig
-s
10
1 = no change 10 = significant change

Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change
C6 What types of support do you feel were effective in supporting you

in the action planning and reflective processes?
D1 Were you an in-service student?

33 responded to the questionnaire.

D3 Do you work for a training provider, a college of further education

or an other provider?

‘Other’ providers cited:
• Youth service
• Community college
• University (2)
• Trade union
• WEA
• NHS
34
No significant comment at this point in the evaluation
D6 The educational establishment where you undertook your course
35
APPENDIX 2
DfES ILP Project: Comparison of findings from Initial (August 2005)

and Final (June 2006) Questionnaire Results
(The control group of NTU In-service (final questionnaire) is not included – see appendix 3)
Questionnaire questions Pre-service In-service

% of responses % of responses
Aug 05 June 06 Aug 05
Section A: Drafting your first Professional Development Plan (Action Plan 1)
A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan?
a) Fully understood 84 68 53 53
b) Partially understood 15 32 43 33
c) Not understood 1 0 4 14
A2 What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan 1?

a) feedback from interview 2 0 5 5
b) micro teaching sessions 13 22 1 5
c) initial assessment 3 4 3 7
d) own reflection/self awareness 25 25 30 28
e) class led peer discussion 15 9 14 15
f) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic) 24 20 17 11
g) Minimum core 3 14 4 9
h) Internal observation feedback (in-service) 4 0 7 8
i) Tutorials 10 6 17 10
j) Other 1 0 2 2
A3 How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action
plan? 13 30 30 12
a) excellent 59 44 34 45
b) good 25 22 30 33
c) satisfactory 3 4 6 10
d) unsatisfactory
36

Aug 05 June 06 Aug 05 June 06
development? 44 24 27 14
a) very useful 48 67 64 67
b) partially useful 8 9 9 19
c) no use
What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in
undertaking the course? Q not Q not
a) remission of time appropriate appropriate 22 17
b) line manager support 17 26
c) in-house coach/mentor 21 12
d) access to resources and/or information 23 26
e) support and supervision discussions 8 8
f) attendance payment 6 10
g) other 3 1
(Qualitative data)
Key themes:
I. guidance 33 13 14 31
II. underpinning processes 33 62 54 20
III. content/proforma 0 0 1 7
IV. support 33 25 30 28
V. extreme comments – very positive or very negative 0 0 1 14
Section B: Drafting your second Professional Development Plan -Action Plan 2 (Pre-service students – Feb, half way through the course)
Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action plan (In-service students – May, towards of the course)?
37
B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your understanding of the
professional development process?
a) greater understanding 83 73 56 52
b) same level of understanding 13 26 44 46
c) less understanding 4 0 0 2

B2 How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal?
(Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘very useful’ & 1 is ‘no use’)
Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful 17 18 15 16
Score of 4-7 – found it quite useful 33 67 45 60
Score of 8-10 – found it very useful 50 15 40 24
B3 How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to the
professional development process? Score out of 10 where 10 is
‘complete understanding’ & 1 is ‘no understanding’)
Score of 1-3 – had little understanding 8 9 1 6
Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding 29 37 40 46
Score of 8-10 – understood well 63 54 59 48
B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of action
plan 1 and draft of action plan 2? (pre-service students)
a) very helpful 42 36 33 42
b) minimal assistance 38 50 52 42
c) not at all helpful 20 14 15 16
B5 What sources of information did you use to draft your second action plan?
a) action plan 1 18 22 19 58
b) observation feedback from subject mentor 17 17 14 43
c) self-evaluation of own teaching 17 26 22 68
d) own reflections/reflective journal 17 16 18 54
e) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic) 17 9 12 38
f) Course content/class discussions 13 10 14 42
g) other 1 0 1 4
B6 Suggestions for improving the process of action review and action
38
planning at this second stage.

Key themes:
I. guidance 27 0 16 18
II. underpinning processes 0 43 36 9
III. content/proforma 0 0 0 0
IV. support 18 43 28 64
V. comments – positive and negative 55 14 20 9
C1 Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning
or did you simply comply with course requirements?
(Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘fully committed’ and 1 is ‘total compliance’
Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance 8 27 10 16
Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging quite well 52 46 41 48
Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully committed 40 27 49 36
C2 Suggestions for encouraging other teacher training students to engage

fully with this process (qualitative data and initial questionnaire only) Q not used Q not used
Key themes:
I. guidance 25 6
II. underpinning processes 33 40
III. content/proforma 0 0
IV. support 17 30
V. comments – positive and negative 25 24
C3 How useful did you find the synoptic review in identifying future
development needs? Q not
a) very useful 40 27 35 completed
b) some use 52 59 65 by in-service
c) no use 8 14 0
39

a) definitely 24 18 24 17
b) likely 36 50 43 38
c) possibly 28 14 15 26
d) unlikely 12 18 18 19

course?
(Score out of 10 where 10 represents significant change) 0 0 1 4
Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change 10 42 37 34
Score of 4-7 – some, but moderate change 90 58 63 62
C6 What types of support do you feel were effective in:
- making the action plan happen (initial questionnaire)?
- supporting you in the action planning and reflective processes (final
questionnaire)?
a) mentor support 25 24 13 17
b) line manager support 6 4 8 10
c) tutor support 30 30 24 27
d) staff development 6 4 14 8
e) use of IT 8 8 11 11
f) access to information/resources 19 18 15 15
g) remission of time 3 8 12 8
h) other 3 4 3 4
C7 (initial questionnaire only)
Suggestions for how the paperwork supporting the process could be Q not used Q not used
improved
Key themes: 0 17
40
I. provide examples 17 17
II. more guidance 17 4
III. electronic version 49 21
IV. improved processes 17 37
V. improved documentation 0 4
VI. support
C7 (final questionnaire only)
Suggestions for improving the review process at the end of the course Q not used Q not used
Key themes:
I. guidance 25 15
IV. support 75 39
V. extreme comments – very positive or very negative 0 0

Suggestions for improving the experience of students eg. around IT Q not used Q not used
Key themes:
VI. guidance 0 7
VII. underpinning processes 82 45
VIII. content/proforma 0 3
IX. support 0 27
X. comments – positive and negative 18 18
D1 Were you an in-service or pre-service student? 25 students 22 students 94 students 54 students

a) New entrant 70 68 3 13
b) 1-3 years 21 14 37 35
c) Over 3 years 8 18 60 52
41
D3 Do you work for, or intend to work for:

a) training provider 14 4 12 15
b) college of further education 64 73 74 68
c) other? 22 23 14 17

a) full time 53 64 52 57
b) part-time 47 36 48 43

YES 0 4 59 51
NO 100 96 41 49
Aug 05 June 06 Aug 05
D6 (initial questionnaires only)
Your preferred learning style(s) Q not used Q not used
a) activist 9 16
b) reflector 16 20
c) theorist 14 10
d) pragmatist 11 9
e) visual 20 18
f) auditory 12 10
g) kinaesthic 18 17
D6 (final questionnaires only)

The educational establishment where you undertook your course Q not used 100 Q not used 4
a) NTU 49
b) Burton College 22
c) Peoples College 25
d) West Notts College
42
43
Appendix 3
DfES ILP Project: Data from NTU in-service control group

Comparison of findings from Initial Questionnaire (August 2005)
In-service
and Final Questionnaire (June 2006) In-service control group
Questionnaire questions In-service

% of responses
Aug 05 June 06
In-service Control
group
Section A: Drafting your Professional Development
Plan (Action Plan)
A1 How well did you understand the importance
of drafting an action plan? 53 62
d) Fully understood 43 32
e) Partially understood 4 6
Not understood
A2 What sources of information did you use to

develop Action Plan 1? 5 2
k) feedback from interview 1 10
l) micro teaching sessions (initial 3 31
questionnaire); observation feedback (final 30 9
q.) 14 9
m) initial assessment (initial questionnaire); 17 8
own reflection/self awareness (final q.) 4 3
n) class led peer discussion 7 8
o) FEnto teaching and learning standards 17 19
(generic) 2 1
p) Minimum core
q) Internal observation feedback (in-service)
r) Tutorials
s) Other

% of responses
Aug 05 June 06
In-service Control
group
A3 How effective was the tutor support given to
you in drafting this action plan?
e) excellent 30 9
f) good 34 38
44
g) satisfactory 30 41
h) unsatisfactory 6 12
A4 How useful did you find the plan in shaping
your professional development? 27 16
d) very useful 64 63
e) partially useful 9 21
f) no use
What types of support were provided by your
course? 22 26
h) remission of time 17 13
i) line manager support 21 31
j) in-house coach/mentor 23 20
k) access to resources and/or information 8 4
l) support and supervision discussions 6 2
m) attendance payment 3 4
n) other
A6 Suggestions to improve the initial action 14 20
planning process 54 20
(Qualitative data) 1 0
Key themes: 30 30
VI. guidance 1 30
VII. underpinning processes
VIII. content/proforma
IX. support
X. comments – positive or negative
% of responses
Aug 05 June 06
In-service Control
group
Section B Reflecting on your Professional

Development Plan/action plan
B1 At this stage of the course, how would you

rate your understanding of the professional
development process? 56 53
d) greater understanding 44 47
e) same level of understanding 0 0
f) less understanding
B2 How useful did you find the process of
completing the reflective journal?
(Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘very useful’ & 15 9
1 is ‘no use’) 45 48
Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful 40 43
B3 How well did you understand how the
45
reflective journal relates to the

professional development process? Score out
of 10 where 10 is 1 12
‘complete understanding’ & 1 is ‘no 40 32
understanding’) 59 56
Score of 4-7 – had quite a good
understanding
B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in
supporting your review of action plan 1 and
draft of action plan 2? (pre-service students) 33 21
d) very helpful 52 48
e) minimal assistance 15 30
f) not at all helpful
B5 (only initial questionnaire)
What sources of information did you use to Q not used
draft your second action plan?
h) action plan 1 19
i) observation feedback from subject mentor 14
j) self-evaluation of own teaching 22
k) own reflections/reflective journal 18
l) FEnto teaching and learning standards 12
(generic) 14
m) Course content/class discussions 1
n) Other
B5 (final questionnaire) Suggestions for
improving the process of review at this stage
in the course.
B6 (initial questionnaire) Suggestions for
improving the process of review and action
planning at this second stage. 16 0
Key themes: 36 33
I. guidance 0 0
IV. support
V. comments – positive or negative
Section C Course completion

C1 Did you fully engage with the process of
planning and reflective learning or did you
simply comply with course requirements?
(Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘fully
committed’ and 1 is ‘total compliance’ 10 23
Score of 1-3 – total/almost total 41 32
compliance 49 45
Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and
engaging quite well
Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully
46
committed
C2 Suggestions for encouraging other teacher
training students to engage fully with this
process (qualitative data)
Key themes: 6 11
I. guidance 40 50
IV. support 24 22
V. comments – positive or negative
% of responses
Aug 05 June 06
In-service Control
group
C3 (Initial questionnaire only)
How useful did you find the synoptic review
in identifying future development needs? Q not used
d) very useful 35
e) some use 65
f) no use 0
C3 (final questionnaire)
C4 (initial questionnaire)
How likely are you to continue to use a
continuing professional development plan to
inform your future development? 24 28
e) definitely 43 16
f) likely 15 28
g) possibly 18 28
h) unlikely
C5 Overall, how far do you feel you have

(Score out of 10 where 10 represents 1 8
significant change) 37 52
Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change 63 40
C6 What types of support do you feel were

effective in:
- making the action plan happen (initial
questionnaire)?
- supporting you in the action planning and 13 14
reflective processes (final questionnaire)? 8 8
i) mentor support 24 24
j) line manager support 14 12
k) tutor support 11 10
l) staff development 15 13
47
m) use of IT 12 13
n) access to information/resources 3 6
o) remission of time
p) other

Suggestions for how the paperwork Q not used
supporting the process could be improved
Key themes 17
I. provide examples 17
II. more guidance 4
III. electronic version 21
IV. improved processes 37
V. clearer documentation 4
VI. support
C7 (final questionnaire and in-service/pre-

service only) Q not used Q not used
Suggestions for improving the review
process at the end of the course

Suggestions for improving the experience of Q not used
students eg. around IT
Key themes 17
I. electronic documentation 33
II. tutor support/class time 16
III. VLP use in/out of class 7
IV. Issues of access 7
V. Guidance 20
VI. E-learning- modelled by tutors/used by
students

% of responses
Aug 05 June 06
In-service Control
group
Section D Additional information
D1 Were you an in-service or pre-service 94 students 33 students

student?

d) New entrant 3 4
e) 1-3 years 37 48
f) Over 3 years 60 48
48
D3 Do you work for, or intend to work for:

d) training provider 12 11
e) college of further education 74 69
f) other? 14 20

c) full time 52 55
d) part-time 48 45

YES 59 44
NO 41 56
D6 (initial questionnaires only)

Your preferred learning style(s) Q not used
h) activist 16
i) reflector 20
j) theorist 10
k) pragmatist 9
l) visual 18
m) auditory 10
n) kinaesthic 17
D6 (final questionnaires only)

The educational establishment where you Q not used
undertook your course 33
e) NTU 0
f) Burton College 0
g) Peoples College 0
h) West Notts College
49

Nottingham Trent University Dfes Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans (Ilps) Section 1: Executive Summary

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nottingham Trent University Dfes Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans (Ilps) Section 1: Executive Summary

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Nottingham Trent University

DfES Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans (ILPs)

Section 1: Executive Summary

Section 2: Background Information and Context

2.1 Original Project Brief

The objectives were to:

2.2 The Project

2.2.1 Local context

2.2.2 Summary of approaches used in the project:

¾ provide a forum for evaluating the questionnaire results and student/tutor

2.2.3 Summary of project model:

• An initial assessment tool which is paper-based but can be stored and

• A Portfolio of Professional Practice which is a loose-leaf portfolio, very

• A literature review which provides a theoretical framework for three areas

2.2.4 The end goal

Section 3: Models/approaches developed

Various factors led us to amend the original methodology, particularly to allow us to

3.1.1 Needs assessment

We administered it by post to 311 in-service and pre-service trainees from the

3.1.2 Piloting the proposed materials

3.1.3 Evaluating the materials

Pre-service questionnaire and session

Student focus group

3.1.4 Desk Research

3.2 Key findings during the pilot

From evaluation of the initial and final questionnaires

Guidance/clear information, underpinning processes and support are seen as

‘a crib sheet of examples would have helped’

46% of pre-service and 29% of in-service trainees made comments relating to

‘more prominence to the development of self (rather than completion of

30% of pre-service and 41% commented on issues relating to support.

‘need more time to get to grips with it’

In-service trainees do not have a greater understanding of action planning and

‘more time with the tutor on the process’

Opportunities for class-led, peer discussion is seen as important in supporting

3.2.2 From evaluation of the Initial Assessment Tool (IAT)

3.2.3 From evaluation of Individual Learning Plan

A ‘booklet’ or ‘portfolio’ is a preferred model to separate pieces of paper (for

An ILP or Portfolio of Professional Practice must be introduced at the earliest

To be successful, a long-term ILP needs to be owned by HR/Staff Development

3.2.4 From desk research

ITT teachers/trainers need to understand reflection and how to facilitate it

A practitioner cannot support another [in becoming a reflective professional]

We suggest that if teachers supporting trainees on ITT programmes do not fully

ITT teachers/trainers need to actively foster conditions, within their

3.2.5 Transition from Initial Teacher Training to CPD

The Trainees Perspective

Table 1. Top 5 conditions cited as necessary for commitment to reflection and

Pre-service In-service 2005 Pre- service In-service In-service 2006

“Find time from employer, develop a structured, methodical approach, encourage

“Paperwork too prescriptive. Prefer mind mapping for planning” Trainee

“For me reflection is excellent, the journal is a pain” Trainee questionnaire 2006.

The Employers Perspective

The role of the Line Manager

From the HR Managers sampled there appears to be more emphasis on compliance

Mandatory requirement for CPD.

The national framework is to be welcomed as a real opportunity to drive forward

Table 2. Possible HR structures and cultures (extremes of a spectrum)

3.3 Issues arising

3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations

Also significant, is the potential impact on the institutions themselves. If the